Racial Profiling Continues to Thrive in the U.S.

August 26, 2013
By
Taylor & Taylor, Attorneys

Share

On August, 14, 2013, The
New York Times published an article entitled, "Racial Profiling Lives On."
The article began by pointing out how the historic ruling by Judge Shira
A. Scheindlin that the stop-and-frisk practices employed by the New York
Police Department were unconstitutional and how it was being applauded
as a major victory against major policing.

Scheindlin is a United States District Court judge on senior status for
the Southern District of New York; she was nominated by President Bill
Clinton on July 28, 1994. In August of 2013, Judge Scheindlin ruled that
the New York city stop-and-frisk program was unconstitutional and she
ordered immediate changes to the program; she also called for a monitor
to supervise the reforms. The case was
Floyd v. City of New York.

The New York City stop-question-and-frisk program is a practice of the
New York City Police Department in which police officers stop and question
thousands of pedestrians annually and frisk them for any weapons or other
contraband. The rules for this program are found in the New York State
Criminal Procedure Law §140.50. In 2011 alone, 684,000 people were
stopped under this program and the vast majority of them were African
American or Latino.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg was disappointed with the decision. "This
is a very dangerous decision made by a judge who I think does not understand
how policing works," he said after the decision was handed down earlier
this month.

According to The
New York Times, Scheindlin's decision does nothing to disrupt the authority the Supreme
Court has given police officers to target African Americans and Latinos
with little or no basis. Despite the Fourth Amendment's protection
against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Supreme Court's interpretation
of that provision still gives officers wide discretion when it comes to
their methods for following, stopping, questioning and frisking someone
as well as employing excessive force against African Americans and Latinos
who have not demonstrated any indication of wrongdoing.

There are still many gray areas where the Fourth Amendment won't hold
up in court; for example, an officer can ask a suspect permission to search
their belongings and the officer is not required to inform the suspect
that they have the right to refuse consent and walk away. The Supreme
Court holds that people don't have the right to know that they can
refuse to have an officer conduct a search.

An officer can still stop and frisk someone for weapons based on the officer's
"reasonable suspicion" – a standard that is more than
a hunch but less than probable cause. Unfortunately, nothing in Scheindlin's
opinion challenges this standard and it's one that is easy for police
officers to meet.

The Supreme Court has made it clear that simply being in a "high crime"
area (which is usually a black or Latino neighborhood) can still be a
factor used by officers to determine if someone is armed or dangerous.
For example, if the suspect ran from an officer on foot, the simple process
of running would give the officer reasonable suspicion, especially if
he fled in a high crime area. If the person was fleeing in a vehicle,
then the officer could easily stop him if he had probable cause that the
suspect had committed any traffic infraction, no matter how minor.

The
Times pointed out how even if the suspect, like Rodney G. King or Oscar Grant
III didn't resist, but was beaten or shot by a police officer, the
likelihood of winning an excessive force claim would not be easy. Courts
and jurors have a tendency to lean towards the police's judgments,
even when those judgments are based on racial stereotypes that render
a black man more dangerous than an armed policeman.

While The
Times wasn't saying that Judge Scheindlin's ruling was unimportant,
it pointed out how she ruled on a particular policy. The victor continues
to be the higher body of law, the Supreme Court doctrine which continues
to expose African Americans and Latinos to racial profiling, harassment
and unnecessary violence.

The information on this website is for general information purposes only.
Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual
case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt
or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.